When compliance officers compared how the actions needed to comply
with accreditation standards aligned with the measurement steps required
to achieve Meaningful Use of EHRs, they discovered a surprising synergy.

For many providers who otherwise meet eligibility criteria for
participation in electronic health record (EHR) incentive programs,
there can be a nagging concern that halts steps toward system
implementation. They worry that the efforts needed to qualify for EHR
Meaningful Use incentive dollars will somehow "cost" more than
they are worth in clinical time, effort, or service productivity, or
that these measures could conflict with other critical operating
standards, such as JCAHO or CARF behavioral health program accreditation
requirements, resulting in more, rather than less efficiency.

In a recent webinar, two compliance professionals from provider
organizations teamed with Mary Givens, Meaningful Use program manager
for webinar sponsor Qualifacts to discuss whether and how the data
gathering and patient service processes required to meet accreditation
standards might serve to meet Meaningful Use measures as well.

Niles, whose organization relies on CARF standards, found that the
data required to detail eight of 15 "core" (required)
Meaningful Use measures corresponded closely with that required to
demonstrate compliance with nine current CARF standards. He also noted
that data to meet three of the ten Meaningful Use "menu set"
measures (five "menu set" measures must be selected) related
closely to that required for three CARF standards (see MU/CARF chart).

To get eligible providers "on board" for EHR
implementation, Niles says that "you have to sell them on two
ideas: First, that an EHR will improve the care they are already
providing and second, that Meaningful Use will not be extra work for
them. Aligning the Meaningful Use measures with the accreditation
standards gives the eligible professional a clear picture of the goals
of each, and may even provide additional tools they were not currently
using."

He maintains that by streamlining workflows to include rules,
standards and contractual requirements and setting up service
documentation to eliminate duplication and discrepancies--both of which
can be done with an EHR system, providers can avoid creating "an
extra burden of effort."

Woods found that a comparison of MU measures and JCAHO behavioral
health care standards showed that eight of the 15 core MU measures
aligned closely with 11 Joint Commission standards, while an additional
three menu set measures aligned with four Joint Commission standards
(see MU/JCAHO chart).

By comparing the Joint Commission standards with the Meaningful Use
measures, it is easy to see the inherent alignment. The main goal for
any accrediting body is to improve the quality, safety and engage
individuals in their own treatment. Meaningful Use measures support and
reinforce these same goals, Woods explained.